I have to make mold for this part’s side holes. Proper direction produces error message but improper direction goes through. How to fix it? Video and file is attached.
Here You go. Shut off surfaces are currently designed with no draft. See if you can modify design so they have at least 1 degree.
You are attempting to create a cavity insert from the core body. Try selecting the cavity body.
You probably in the real world wouldn't use that feature at all for that.
Yes you can have sliding cores with no draft but............... it is not great and would be a lot better with 3 degrees on sides where metal slides over each other. But also then you probably wouldn't want draft on all sides just some sides. At that point that feature just doesn't work.
In the video it is selected core.
Webinar Archives: Designing with SOLIDWORKS Mold Tools - YouTube
If I selected cavity it was working on one side. But it is giving issue in other side. Not detecting a line for direction and cavity is missing in the tree. Video and file is attached.
Maha,.. you need to understand, this and many other videos are ONLY BASIC EXAMPLES.. there are a lot of details missing.... and they are generally INCOMPLETE and NOT REAL WORLD EXAMPLES.
I assumed it is a real world example because this video is Webinar and uploaded in 2017.
Did you read my comment in your other post? The one about this same problem?
Mold Design and Side Blocks
There's no need to create a new post for every question about one single problem. Just keep the discussion going in one place. It will help keep things simpler for anyone who has a similar problem in the future.
Anyway, for whatever reason, the "through all" end condition didn't work for me on this problem, however a "blind" end condition did work. I don't know why but that's SolidQuirks for you.
fact,.. it was from a VAR... so, please, take info with a grain of salt.
fact,.. and/also webinar's direct from SolidWorks Corp and SW World should also be taken with a grain of salt.
..(SW fact checking since 1995)
This is a different design with side faces flat as you mentioned the way to make it in the earlier post. I have a issue in my earlier post I will let you know in that post, if I can't sort out.
You could do this. Change the plastic part to be moldable with an A/B split tool! You need to stop using the SW mold tools they'll all ways be more trouble than doing it with SW other tools for mold design.
Please attach your file.
These side cores should move in the same direction of the holes
Make a sketch on the front plane for the core command
I would think that would give knife edges on the plastic part in the window areas.
Not Knife, but thin. You can modify the thickness of the edge by adjusting the angle of the side walls (this one was 5 degrees/s) in concert with the wall thickness of the part and the size of the openings that you need. In this case the edges in blue are .01, but as I stated could be made thicker. Many real world baskets are made similar to this to save tooling $$$
Probably worth looking at where you would want the feed point. The slide will be on the MH of the tool but depending on where you want to feed this part the core or cavity can switch to either side. This means you will need different angles on the slide depending on that decision. If you have more than one angle on the slide you might as well not use the core function and instead use split.
Generally speaking for the best quality moulding the feed would be underneath and the part would be stripper plate ejected so no visible round ejector witness marks.
Yeah it's really how messy you can live with the part looking and thin and thick wall sections. I think it is also far more more prone to flash.
With a slide you can adjust it relatively easy on a part like this if it is flashing.
True, but that method can be made to look and function well (no flash) with the right design parameters.(hardening, draft, shutoff angles,etc) However, depending on the size of the plastic part (in the case of a clothes basket we're talking substantial size) Slides can get big and costly and prone to their own set of problems (size of slide "Area" vs distance they need to travel "Usually not much") can make for unwieldy components,(because a slide should be deeper by about 1.5 X its height to function well "Slide in the gibs vs stick and move") and a large expensive tool. Sometimes putting this type of geometry on some sort of internal large "Area" lifters is a good idea.(If the witness is allowable to the inside top of the basket and there is no desire for a radius on the outside around the edges of each opening) With the lifter scenario the lifters actually work as strippers to a degree and kill 2 birds with one stone. I was just trying to show the kind of thinking that is involved in part design to accommodate keeping the tooling options costs down.
I do not know how to convert e-drawing into part file.
Post your file in an X_T format and I'll post back with a solidworks file of it with the steps to take.
Here is the X_T.
Thanks for taking trouble.
Shutoff angles should be a minimum of 3 degrees, at least...
Well that's simply not true. You mean to tell me you've NEVER designed shut off at 1 degree? What do you tell the customer if they won't allow 3 degrees, that you won't take the job? 3 degrees is better than 1 degree of course, but with proper material/ hardness selection, proper cooling to minimize expansion disparity between components,and proper tolerances on the shutoff surfaces 1 degree can work. Besides, I'm just trying to get Maha to gain some experience by modifying the design I presented.
What I will say even when you get 3 degrees on the shut-offs what will happen if any of those windows don't shut off properly after machining (well actually spark spark eroded in this case). Exactly what steps will you take to remedy it? It's a toolmakers nightmare. First stop you will be looking at welding and many places do not allow welding on tools. Then you will be looking at inserting from the side, not nice.
Retrieving data ...